Matt Burrows at The Straight notes Jim Prentice is receiving a lump of coal just in time for Christmas as two non governmental organizations lambaste Canada as an environmental laggard (PDF)

Ignoring the forgettable Ambrose, there are two important differences between Prentice and Baird that matter: Baird isn't a threat to Stephen Harper, Prentice is.

Baird was pushed to Environment because irascible bombast is Harper's modus operandi when he intends to do nothing but make it look like he's doing something. If you want self-righteous anger and bombast, but no results, Baird's your man.

Sadly for Mr. Prentice, he's an honourable person who leaves a strong impression that he actually wants to achieve something positive no matter what job has been handed him. That's not a recipe for success in Harper's harem where the cream is curdled and tossed out, not allowed to float to the top.

Prentice won't be allowed to succeed on this file in part by the shackles imposed by his boss, and in part because he is from, well, Alberta. In the process his reputation as a straight dealer will be cut down a number of notches.

Its a scenario just as Stephen Harper ordered.

From the you-knew-this-would-happen but it-doesn't-matter-anyway department

Last night: Liberal Party Announces Consultative Process to Appoint an Interim Leader

Liberal Party President Doug Ferguson announced Monday that the Liberal Party’s National Executive has approved a consultative process by which it will appoint an interim Liberal Leader ...

Consultative, not democratic, a process which regular members would have largely been excluded from.

“I first wish to thank Mr. Dion for the courage and passion with which he led the Liberal Party of Canada,” said Mr. Ferguson.

Mr. Ferguson may have also added: "Don't let the door hit you in the bum on the way out, Stéphane".

This morning: Rae bows out, Ignatieff secures Liberal leadership (CP)

OTTAWA — Michael Ignatieff has secured the federal Liberal leadership without a fight after his last remaining rival, longtime friend Bob Rae, bowed out.

Rae informed his supporters of his decision during a conference call this morning and is to make it official at a news conference later today. His decision came just hours after the Liberal national executive rejected his plea to find an expedited way of giving all party members a vote for Stephane Dion's replacement.

And no messy recriminations about party democracy.

I don't agree with everything President-elect Obama is planning for his economic stimulus package (building new roads and bridges is surely not the most important of America's needs) but I do agree fully and completely with this:

Third, my economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.

As we renew our schools and highways, we’ll also renew our information superhighway. It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m President – because that’s how we’ll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world. President-elect Barack Obama, December 6, 2008

I can't help but think that the Liberals, at least, have managed to avoid a landmine thanks to the Governor General granting Harper's request to prorogue parliament. Oh to have been a fly on the wall to eavesdrop on that conversation. Perhaps Harper's minions will do us all a favour and accidentally release an unauthorized tape.

Puzzlement of the day: Did someone in the Liberal Party deliberately sabotage Dion's recorded speech yesterday? Is internecine warfare alive and well in the LPC?

The answer to the last question has nothing to do with the former, and I present it here in code: Does the day of the week start with a consonant? If so, the answer is yes, internecine warfare is alive and well in the LPC.

My apologies for posting a link to the National Post; while I don't normally seek them out, they have the most complete timeline describing the tape saga.

Even as Stockwell Day today claimed in Question Period that he would "never" sign a pact with the Bloc Quebecois, details emerge this afternoon that as leader of the Canadian Alliance Mr. Day did exactly that.

Its pot-calling-kettle-black day in Ottawa.

Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance:

OTTAWA — The separatist Bloc Québécois was part of secret plotting in 2000 to join a formal coalition with the two parties that now make up Stephen Harper's government, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

The scheme, designed to propel current Conservative minister Stockwell Day to power, undermines the Harper government's line this week that it would never sign a deal like the current one between the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc. Daniel Leblanc, Globe and Mail, December 3, 2008

Today in the House of Commons we witnessed both Harper and Day shouting at the Opposition over the prospect of losing government to a coalition, even as more evidence surfaced showing both Harper and Day as leaders of their party have themselves set the wheels in motion to do exactly what the opposition parties have agreed to do: form a coalition government.

Neither Day nor Harper bothered to consult with their caucus or members. Nor did former Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark, the third party in the 2000 agreement with the Bloc Quebecois.

See the attached scanned copy of the 2000 Canadian Alliance-Progressive Conservative-Bloc Quebecois coalition agreement.

Doubtless these historical revelations will play a role in the Governor General's decision.

On this morning's Bill Good show - right wing talk-back radio here in Vancouver - Mr. Good wonders aloud where all the good folks from Vancouver-Kingsway are on the potential defeat of the Harper government by a coalition. Good implies there may be some sort of double standard in the comparing today's community response to that over David Emerson jumping from Liberal to Conservative parties less than 24 hours after the ballots were counted.

Before responding to Good's challenge, let me first turn the question around.

Where were you, Bill Good, when Emerson ignored the will of the people here?

I'll answer for Good: You were silent on the issue. Sure, the Emerson affair made for good copy on the more pedestrian CTV nightly news show you anchor, but it was clear from your ongoing commentary on talk radio that you never took the side of real democracy and indeed in later times you expressed nothing but support for Emerson.

As for where voters here are on the issue, I imagine there are a mixed range of thoughts and emotions, many of which are bound to be as ill-informed as is clearly in evidence all across this country. The parties, and fairly we can single out the Conservatives especially, are further confusing the public with overheated rhetoric and misinformation as to the nature of our parliamentary system of governance.

Speaking personally, not as a spokesperson for the Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson, I opposed what Emerson did not because he had no right to do it as an MP (he did have the right) but because he violated the trust of voters. Had he sat as a CPC back bencher and voted along the same lines as he had as a Liberal, I'd have had much less of an argument with him. However by accepting a cabinet position, Emerson was duty bound to work against the very campaign platform he was elected upon, and that is a breach of trust. I support anti-floor crossing legislation because more often than not floor-crossing results in such undemocratic flip flops.

As for the current drama, it would be helpful if the media could at least de-mystify the proceedings. What is being proposed is entirely democratic - a majority of members in the House of Commons are not Conservative Party MPs, and they represent a majority of Canadians who elected them from across the country. Thus from a democratic principles perspective, it is easy to support the right of the opposition parties to try to form a government, whether one agrees with the outcome or not.

Whether now is the time for such a move, and whether such a coalition can ultimately be successful in delivering positive results for Canada, are entirely different questions.

When the furore in Ottawa has died, and when the economic issues facing the country have been well addressed, parliamentarians and Canadians should return their attention to one of the root problems in our country: Our first past the post electoral system. In the past my traditionalist tendencies have prevented me from accepting it was time to change our antiquated electoral system based on plurality voting. I'm not so hesitant these days.

Macleans' Kady O'Malley unearths some background material from one of NDP Leader Jack Layton's books, Speaking out louder. Layton writes about the last attempt at forming a coalition, one which was driven by Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe -- a coalition or minority government dependent on the Bloc Quebecois (Chantal Hébert also writes today) -- the very scenario Harper now blasts the opposition parties for having dared to agree upon. Petulance is a word that comes to mind.

Waiting outside Mr. Harper’s office for our meeting to begin, I asked Mr. Duceppe what he thought would happen if the prime minister refused to accept such an ultimatum. He replied that a government defeat so soon after a general election meant the Governor General would then have to turn “to one of us” to form a government. We both knew that meant Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. I asked Mr. Duceppe if he could accept such an eventuality. He was not only clear that he could, but he would.

Stephen Harper, while less inclined to brinksmanship, nevertheless warmed to the seduction of Mr. Duceppe’s strategy. Under this scenario, Mr. Harper would become prime minister in an informal alliance with the Bloc. Unthinkable? Not to either Mr. Harper or Mr. Duceppe. The Bloc leader was willing to strategize for Stephen Harper to become prime minister, despite the Conservatives’ many negative policies - policies completely contrary to the desires and values of most Quebecers. While shocked, I could not say I was surprised. ”Speaking out louder” by Jack Layton (p. 340)

Here in late 2008 it appears that Mr. Harper has shed his aversion to brinksmanship.

Angus Reid has published a national public opinion poll giving us one of the first reads on where Canadians' heads are at over the drama playing out in Ottawa.

Which of these statements comes closest to your own view?

• 35% - The Conservative party deserves to continue in government
• 40% - The Conservative party does not deserve to continue in government
• 25% - Not sure

If the Conservative minority government is defeated, what would be your preferred solution?

• 32% - Holding a new federal election
• 37% - Allowing the opposition to form a coalition government (two or more parties are represented in the cabinet)
• 7% - Allowing the opposition to govern by accord (a party is supported by one or more parties that do not have representation in the cabinet)
• 24% - Not sure

44% support some form of government leadership by the current opposition while only 32% are prepared to settle this through a new election.

The report goes on to say:

Some striking regional references are evident when Canadians assess the Tory administration. Quebecers are clearly in favour of toppling the current government (53%), while a majority of Albertans believe the Conservatives should remain in office (53%). A slight plurality of Ontarians (39%) believes the Tories deserve to stay, while respondents in British Columbia are evenly split.

Harper has chosen a scorched earth approach to handling this latest challenge to his leadership and is burning many bridges behind his apparent retreat from Quebec. How can it help national unity to see him and his ministers, including those who are normally friends to Quebec and ought to know better, whipping up anglo regions in the country, rekindling or fomenting anew hysteria and anger over la Quebecois.

Lost among the chest beating is one simple fact: Not every citizen who cast a vote for the Bloc Quebecois is a separatist. Harper risks turning the tide on separatist thought, which had been receding over the past decade, back to land.

RallyForCanada.ca, a site rallying those opposed to the coalition agreement entered into by the opposition parties, is the brain child of prolific blogger Stephen Taylor, a Conservative mouthpiece who works for the (Preston) Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

I posted the following on Mr. Taylor's site in response to his announcement of the RallyForCanada.ca site:

Stephen - do you only support "democracy" when it threatens the party's position in parliament?

I don't recall you speaking up at all when Stephen Harper authorized and entered into secret negotiations with David Emerson to overturn the votes of Vancouver-Kingsway residents. Emerson was in talks with Harper's representative less than 24 hours after the ballots were counted.

And did you moan for democracy when Stephen Harper broke his own law in calling for an election, purely for partisan political advantage, more than a year in advance of what his own law set out as the lawful fixed election date? No, I don't believe you did.

Apparently being a "fellow" at the Manning Centre for Building Democracy has nothing at all to do with actually building, or respecting, democracy. Michael Watkins, December 2, 2008

I'm a former Progressive Conservative and former Conservative Party member who left the party as a result of the attack on democracy Stephen Harper made right here in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway. Despite starting out well with a call for Emerson to run in a by-election (which of course would never happen), Taylor goes on to make the same sort of mealy mouth ends justify the means argument most Conservatives uttered in response to l'affair Emerson. Not one of them stood up for democracy. Most were afraid to utter a word lest Stephen Harper or his goons lash out. They still are, albeit Harper's vaunted grip on the party may be cracking ever so slightly.

Sadly I've not run into very many Conservatives who take democracy as a principle seriously. You've got to fight for democracy even when it hurts your team, if the principle is to mean anything.

Perhaps they don't teach that lesson at the (Preston) Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

At the outset let me state that I do not agree with the premise the Conservative Party supporters are promoting - that a coalition government is somehow undemocratic. In our parliamentary system a coalition government is entirely democratic.

Against

• Rally for Canada, provides a listing of rallies not in favour of the coalition
• National Citizens Coalition, Stephen Harper's old employer
• Petition on-line calling for an election

For

• Make Parliament Work, provides a listing of rallies in favour of the coalition; also in French: Pour un parlement qui marche.
• Canadians for a Progressive Coalition, contains an on-line petition (no email address required) and other resources; Candles for a Coalition, Thursday Dec/ 4.
• Smart Vote 2008, provides an on-line letter writing utility in support of the coalition
• Canadian Labour Congress provides its own basis for support of the proposed coalition
• Defend Our Democracy makes the point that Green plus Bloc plus NDP plus Liberal votes equals Canada's Majority. Provides a petition as well as a very useful letter writing tool.
• 62% Majority You are part of the 62% majority. Be part of the change.

We do not go to the polls to elect a Prime Minister or even a government, a fact lost on most voters. We elect members of parliament to represent us and it is these members who are then called upon to form a government, usually based on which party has the largest standing in the House.

When one party has a majority of the seats, the nature of the government is a simple outcome. When, as has been the case for the past three elections, no party enjoys a majority of seats, then the Governor General will request one party to form the government if they have a sufficient plurality of seats to provide stability in government. Thus a Martin, and two Harper, minority governments were formed.

If no one party can provide a sufficient plurality of seats, the Governor General will ask for or entertain proposals from a coalition of parties who may wish to form a stable government. If no coalition can be formed, the Governor General has no option but to call another election. The key determining factor for the Governor General should always be stability in government.

Mr. Harper has shown by his actions that his government is unable to obtain and hold the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons, thus putting the government in an unstable position with no expectation that this situation will change. It is therefore a logical and completely democratic decision to approve the coalition government proposal put forth by the opposition parties who, it must be repeated, occupy the majority of seats in the House of Commons.

The Conservatives have little recourse. Stephen Harper has played his hand and badly so. They will try to rally public opinion with the faint hope that public expression can hamper the Governor General from accepting a coalition government. We'll see a media blitz soon enough, in addition to rallies planned for across the country.

Those advocating for a coalition government have the entirety of parliamentary history on their side, and the numbers in the House of Commons to make a coalition work.

The Governor General has only three choices. Call a new election - completely unacceptable given the proposal which has been made to form a coalition government. Proroguing parliament - cancelling this session - mere weeks after it started and with not a single bit of legislation passed is likewise not an option. With an election having just been concluded the Governor General has little option but to seriously entertain the coalition proposal.

Rallies supporting the coalition are also planned in the lead up to what will likely be a vote of non confidence in the government next week.